If Ms. Beck is an attorney, someone (anyone who knows of this) should file a complaint with all the states in which she is licensed. She has made a false statement and a false threat, which is serious lawyer misconduct.
Who doesn't love Mr. Rogers? He just wants to be your neighbor. In his role as King Friday XIII, he's run an actual country, albeit inhabited almost entirely by puppets. He has had to deal with the repeated terrorist threats of Lady Elaine. He has had to deal with foreign policy, since Donkey Hoty lives in the foreign state of Some Place Else. He has a experience in operating a mass transit / trolly system.
The court enters a default judgment against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. There may or may not be a hearing, depending on the relief requested.
Or is it a criminal offense to fail to answer a civil summons?
No.
OK, so I appear in court and sign whatever it is I need to sign to avoid committing contempt or whatever. Then I ignore the plaintiff.
If you file and serve an answer to the complaint, the civil process fires up. If you continue to ignore the process, the court may strike your answer and enter a default judgment(unlikely) or the plaintiff may move for summary judgment (more likely). The end result of both is the same - judgment against you.
What happens if the plaintiff tries to collect the judgment, and the defendant ignores the bill collectors?
A garnishment summons is served upon your bank and/or your employer to order them to hold onto money that would be delivered to you. The the judgment creditor will seize those funds.
Do civil courts have the power to send the police to an ISP not named in the lawsuit to confiscate equipment?
Yes.
What can the plaintiff really do to enforce compliance with frivolous judgments?
In the end, guys with guns come and take your stuff.
Yes, I am a lawyer. I have lots of clients who thought they could just ignore a "frivolous" lawsuit. They come crying to me when the garnishment is served on their bank. Yes, there is stuff you can do _sometimes_ to get the matter reopened, but it's expensive, time-consuming, and not always successful.
Your leson for today: Never ignore a summons. Read the thing and make a written response. Even just a letter is infinitely better than a default.
I doubt this will be sufficient for a preliminary injunction. Search King does not seem to have any evidence supporting its assertions - just the bare naked assertions of Massa. I personally would never file something like this. The magistrate judge is going to eat him alive.
Of course, filing deficient lawsuits is nothing new to Mr. Sanger - have a look at this fine case
p1=number of programmers at last hacking session e=total slices eaten in last hacking session
a=average slices per programmer = e/p
s=slices per pizza (unless you get that yummy thin crust crosscut pizza)
to get the number of pizzas for this hacking session:
p2=number of programmers at his hacking session
p2*a/s=n=number of pizzas to order
Yup, your calculator can do the grunt work of the arithmetic if you are too STUPID to do the multiplication and division yourself, but algebra tells you the order in which to enter the numbers. Algebra is is the formal representation of what you described in your post.
The method of determining how much each programmer owes, including calculation of the tip is left as an exercise for the student.
Good service gives the Court personal jurisdiction over this particular defendant. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the type of case which can be heard.
If the Court never had personal jurisdiction because of bad service, the judgment is void.
Further, to enforce the judgment, it must be docketed in the home state of the defendant or a state in which the defendant has assets. When the plaintiff attempts to do this, the defendant can assert the defense that the judgment is void and should not be docketed. If the judgment is not docketed, it cannot be collected. Any attempt to collect it is abuse of process.
Have a look at Rule 4 sometime. Have a look at the small claims court rules. People get served by mail all the time.
In some states, you don't even have to go as far as filing the case or getting the judgment. For an example, see http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/001270p.pdf
On my 1. You argue first: Currencies were supplied privately in the past. I respond: Yes, and did you see modern industrial capitalism then? No. You only saw it after currencies were brought under government control and made trustworthy to investors, even if they are not trustworthy to _you_.
You argue second: The Great Depression only occurred after the founding of the Federal Reserve System, which was designed to prevent such things. I respond: 1. And after that one bad depression, there have been no others, in contrast to the system before that. 2. The Federal Reserve is, in essence, the government of the United States subcontracting out its power to make currency to large banks. If you do not like the Federal Reserve (which you seem to imply here), then you seem to actually _not_ want currency privatized.
On my 2. You argue first: Anti-trust defeats. I respond: 1. Microsoft would not have shipped a single copy of its software if it did not believe it could coerce payment from OEMs. If there was no way to enforce future payments, Dell would simply have one master disk of Windows ME and copy it to all their shipped systems - and Microsoft could not do a thing about it. 2. While the Sherman Act may effect some contracts, it is completely overwhelmed by, say, the impact of the Uniform Commercial Code which guarantees the enforcability of contracts.
On my 3: You argue first: this is a fallacy. I respond: 1. This is an assertion, not an argument. You have no warrant, no grounds, no backing. 2. I do not _defend_ the corporation as a legitimate or moral structure; I merely argue that without a liability shield, investment of capital would be too limited for modern industrial capitalism.
You argue second: I am a hypocrite brainwashed by government schooling. I respond: 1. Simple ad hominem. Not an argument. 2. My econ degree was paid for by my grandparents, the Presbyterian Church, and the Reader's Digest Foundation. No governmental schooling there.
We have an economic system that is extremely complex and has some groundings of dubious morality. The concept of the corporation _is_ ethically suspect. I really don't like having my currency run by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The fact that we have to have something as kludgy as the Sherman Ac and the Federal Trade Commission t to try to bring some control to this system bothers me. However, I put up with it for one reason: this system makes a lot of stuff real cheap. Is the system elegant? No. Does it generally work? Yes.
The error in your post is the confusion of free markets with capitalism.
The trade of goods and services goes on all the time. It requires nothing except two individuals with different indifference curves and resources.
Modern industrial capitalism requires, at least, the following:
1. Currency
2. Protection of future contracts, i.e. some method of enforcing promises.
3. Some method of shielding individuals from the liability for corporate acts.
Probably a lot more. It's been a few years since I got that econ degree.
These are things that are best supplied by governments. Sure, libertarian and anarcho-capitalist goofballs can spout off on how the market can supply these things, but there are exactly zero examples of it actually being done.
Re:Forever War == Starship Troopers after Vietnam
on
The Forever War
·
· Score: 1
My feeling about these two books has always been that Starship Troopers was written by someone who had never actually been in combat, while The Forever Was was written by a veteran. IIRC, Heinlein never saw actual combat.
You can always recover your actual damages. If the violation is unintentional, there are also some small, capped, statutory damages. If the violation is intentional, uncapped punitives are available.
OK, time to put on the law hat. It's around here somehwere . . .
The United States Government has a lot of power over what happens when you use it's Postal Service. The government clearly states that when someone puts unsolicited items in the mail and sends them out, they become gifts. Game over.
DC is attempting to circumvent 39 USC 3009. The first section of that statute makes such circumvention a violation of the Federal Trade Act, specifically 15 USC 45. The Federal Trade Commission has the power to enforce section 45. The FTC can issue a cease and desist order (not just a "lawyer letter", but an order). If that order is violated, the FTC can sue for up to $10,000.00 for each violation of the order. It is very well-established that each mailing in violation of an order is a separate violation. See,e.g., United States v. Reader's Digest Ass'n.
Look, these guys at DC deserve exactly zero zympathy. DC sent out unsolicited items. They then attempted to assert an ownership interest in items they had given away as a gift. This is an unfair and deceptive trade practice. For once, the folk wisdom about the law is correct - if you get it in the mail unsolocited, it is a gift. Just about everyone in the US knows this. The guys at DC know it.
Look at the language Congress used: the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. I can't think of a broader description of full rights to chattel property. Scan whatever you want or use the little red light for rectal exams. It's your thing.
Any legal information in this post is worth exactly what you paid me for it.
To start - what DC is trying to create is a bailment. A bailment is A delivery of goods or personal property, by one person (bailor) to another (bailee), in trust for execution of a special object upon or in relation to such goods, beneficial either to the bailor or bailee or both, and upon a contract, express or implied, to perform the trust and carry out such object, and thereupon either to redeliver the goods to the bailor or otherwise dispose of the same in conformity with the purposes of the trust.Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. All that verbaiage is the attempt to legally describe all the ways you can lend things to other people without transferring title. As DC says in its EULA, The:CueCat reader is only on loan to you from Digital:Convergence and may be recalled at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, your possession or control of the:CueCat reader does not transfer any right, title or interest to you in the:CueCat reader.
The most important thing is that a bailment is not an absolute transfer. The bailor (in this case DC) retains title to the chattel property (CueCat).
Problem is, DC goes on to contradict its bailment agreement as follows:
1. The warranty recital.
The DC warranty disclaimer says, YOU ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SELECTION OF THE:CUECAT READER TO ACHIEVE YOUR INTENDED RESULTS, AND FOR THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF THE:CUECAT READER. This is pretty standard sales warranty disclaimer language. DC states that the user has chosen CueCat. While this may be true for those folks who got it at RS, it is not true for those who received it unsolicited in the mail.
2. The warranty disclaimer.
The DC warranty disclaimer goes on: THE:CUECAT READER IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY OR SATISFACTORY QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE The disclaimed warranties are all sales warranties. The especially damning one is the disclaimer of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. First, DC says you can only use it for a particular purpose, and then says it is not warranted to actually serve that purpose. The fitness warranty applies where you get specific help or guidance in selecting a product for a particular use. DC wants it both ways - they want to force you into their particular use, but say that they did not so they can disclaim the warranty.
3. Integration clause
The integration clause says, No amendment to or modification of this License will be binding unless in writing and signed by Digital:Convergence.
. Hey, where's the signature?
For further entertainment, check out http://www.digitalconvergence.com/legal.html, which contains the absolutely laughable statement, The materials ("Materials") contained in Digital:Convergence Corporation ("Digital:Convergence") Web site are provided for informational purposes only. Ah, its just info, not a real contract.
Geez, these guys are fools. Bankruptcy or buyout in 12 months.
In addition, he suffers from a severe performative contradiction.
He strongly criticizes ESR for advocating gun ownership rights. His argument is as folows:
1. ESR is a free software advocate
2. ESR is a "gun-nut"
3. Guns are bad
4. Therefore, free software is bad
(I know this is a bit condensed, but this is the core of the argument).
Meyer's problem is that his copyright defense is subject to exactly the same analysis, to wit:
1. Beaumarchais was a copyright advocate
2. Beaumarchais was a "gun-nut" (or at least a gun smuggler)
3. Guns are bad.
4. Therefore copyright is bad.
Not only does Meyer engage in informal fallacies (the ad hominem to be precise), but he is also a hypocrite.
And hypocrisy is unethical in jsut about any system.
Re:It's not a states rights issue.
on
Fighting UCITA
·
· Score: 1
IAAL, but this is worth only as much as you paid for it.... 1. In commerce clause jurisprudence, there is a doctrine of preemption, i.e. the States may not have power to regulate things because the federal government may have preempted that power. 2. There is also the problem of the full faith and credit clause. States must respect contracts in other states. This is what got the funadmentalists undies in a bunch over the potential of gay marriages in Hawaii. If Hawaii allowed same sex marriages, the other States would have to give that marriage full faith and credit. 3. Federal courts do have jurisdiction over controversies involving citizens of different states (called diversity jurisdiction), but only if the amount in controversy is $75,000.00 or more. 4. What you will have in each of these controversies is a "conflict of laws" analysis. These types of controversies show up all the time, and all the states have rules for resolving them. I once sued a repo man in federal district court in the District of Minnesota for violating the Wisconsin Consumer Act - Federal court applying Minnesota conflicts of laws analysis to determine it should use Wisconsin law! The result of all this? Big downtown law firms will make LOTS and LOTS of money for a while . . . .
Slashdot Mirror
If Ms. Beck is an attorney, someone (anyone who knows of this) should file a complaint with all the states in which she is licensed. She has made a false statement and a false threat, which is serious lawyer misconduct.
Who doesn't love Mr. Rogers? He just wants to be your neighbor. In his role as King Friday XIII, he's run an actual country, albeit inhabited almost entirely by puppets. He has had to deal with the repeated terrorist threats of Lady Elaine. He has had to deal with foreign policy, since Donkey Hoty lives in the foreign state of Some Place Else. He has a experience in operating a mass transit / trolly system.
Fred Rogers in 2004!
Any disclosure of the trade secret of the page rank algorithm will be under a protective order. These are extremely common under Rule 26.
What happens if a frivolous lawsuit is ignored?
The court enters a default judgment against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. There may or may not be a hearing, depending on the relief requested.
Or is it a criminal offense to fail to answer a civil summons?
No.
OK, so I appear in court and sign whatever it is I need to sign to avoid committing contempt or whatever. Then I ignore the plaintiff.
If you file and serve an answer to the complaint, the civil process fires up. If you continue to ignore the process, the court may strike your answer and enter a default judgment(unlikely) or the plaintiff may move for summary judgment (more likely). The end result of both is the same - judgment against you.
What happens if the plaintiff tries to collect the judgment, and the defendant ignores the bill collectors?
A garnishment summons is served upon your bank and/or your employer to order them to hold onto money that would be delivered to you. The the judgment creditor will seize those funds.
Do civil courts have the power to send the police to an ISP not named in the lawsuit to confiscate equipment?
Yes.
What can the plaintiff really do to enforce compliance with frivolous judgments?
In the end, guys with guns come and take your stuff.
Yes, I am a lawyer. I have lots of clients who thought they could just ignore a "frivolous" lawsuit. They come crying to me when the garnishment is served on their bank. Yes, there is stuff you can do _sometimes_ to get the matter reopened, but it's expensive, time-consuming, and not always successful.
Your leson for today: Never ignore a summons. Read the thing and make a written response. Even just a letter is infinitely better than a default.
I doubt this will be sufficient for a preliminary injunction. Search King does not seem to have any evidence supporting its assertions - just the bare naked assertions of Massa. I personally would never file something like this. The magistrate judge is going to eat him alive.
1 90 .htm
Of course, filing deficient lawsuits is nothing new to Mr. Sanger -
have a look at this fine case
http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-5
p1=number of programmers at last hacking session
e=total slices eaten in last hacking session
a=average slices per programmer = e/p
s=slices per pizza (unless you get that yummy thin crust crosscut pizza)
to get the number of pizzas for this hacking session:
p2=number of programmers at his hacking session
p2*a/s=n=number of pizzas to order
Yup, your calculator can do the grunt work of the arithmetic if you are too STUPID to do the multiplication and division yourself, but algebra tells you the order in which to enter the numbers. Algebra is is the formal representation of what you described in your post.
The method of determining how much each programmer owes, including calculation of the tip is left as an exercise for the student.
Now, begone!
Good service gives the Court personal jurisdiction over this particular defendant. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the type of case which can be heard.
If the Court never had personal jurisdiction because of bad service, the judgment is void.
Further, to enforce the judgment, it must be docketed in the home state of the defendant or a state in which the defendant has assets. When the plaintiff attempts to do this, the defendant can assert the defense that the judgment is void and should not be docketed. If the judgment is not docketed, it cannot be collected. Any attempt to collect it is abuse of process.
Have a look at Rule 4 sometime. Have a look at the small claims court rules. People get served by mail all the time.
In some states, you don't even have to go as far as filing the case or getting the judgment. For an example, see http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/001270
On my 1. You argue first: Currencies were supplied privately in the past. I respond: Yes, and did you see modern industrial capitalism then? No. You only saw it after currencies were brought under government control and made trustworthy to investors, even if they are not trustworthy to _you_.
You argue second: The Great Depression only occurred after the founding of the Federal Reserve System, which was designed to prevent such things. I respond: 1. And after that one bad depression, there have been no others, in contrast to the system before that. 2. The Federal Reserve is, in essence, the government of the United States subcontracting out its power to make currency to large banks. If you do not like the Federal Reserve (which you seem to imply here), then you seem to actually _not_ want currency privatized.
On my 2. You argue first: Anti-trust defeats. I respond: 1. Microsoft would not have shipped a single copy of its software if it did not believe it could coerce payment from OEMs. If there was no way to enforce future payments, Dell would simply have one master disk of Windows ME and copy it to all their shipped systems - and Microsoft could not do a thing about it. 2. While the Sherman Act may effect some contracts, it is completely overwhelmed by, say, the impact of the Uniform Commercial Code which guarantees the enforcability of contracts.
On my 3: You argue first: this is a fallacy. I respond: 1. This is an assertion, not an argument. You have no warrant, no grounds, no backing. 2. I do not _defend_ the corporation as a legitimate or moral structure; I merely argue that without a liability shield, investment of capital would be too limited for modern industrial capitalism.
You argue second: I am a hypocrite brainwashed by government schooling. I respond: 1. Simple ad hominem. Not an argument. 2. My econ degree was paid for by my grandparents, the Presbyterian Church, and the Reader's Digest Foundation. No governmental schooling there.
We have an economic system that is extremely complex and has some groundings of dubious morality. The concept of the corporation _is_ ethically suspect. I really don't like having my currency run by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The fact that we have to have something as kludgy as the Sherman Ac and the Federal Trade Commission t to try to bring some control to this system bothers me. However, I put up with it for one reason: this system makes a lot of stuff real cheap. Is the system elegant? No. Does it generally work? Yes.
The error in your post is the confusion of free markets with capitalism.
The trade of goods and services goes on all the time. It requires nothing except two individuals with different indifference curves and resources.
Modern industrial capitalism requires, at least, the following:
1. Currency
2. Protection of future contracts, i.e. some method of enforcing promises.
3. Some method of shielding individuals from the liability for corporate acts.
Probably a lot more. It's been a few years since I got that econ degree.
These are things that are best supplied by governments. Sure, libertarian and anarcho-capitalist goofballs can spout off on how the market can supply these things, but there are exactly zero examples of it actually being done.
My feeling about these two books has always been that Starship Troopers was written by someone who had never actually been in combat, while The Forever Was was written by a veteran. IIRC, Heinlein never saw actual combat.
Iron Chef White Trash presents four dishes showcasing the theme ingredient of squid.
First, a deep fried squid, served with ketchup and a side of fires.
Second, a squid and peanut butter sandwich, served on Wonder Bread (tm) with the crusts carefully trimmed.
Third, a delicious squid Jello salad. The squid is chopped and suspended in lime Jello with carrots. The Jello mold is topped with Miracle Whip.
Fourth, squid nachos. Hunks of squid are spread over Doritos, covered with Velveeta and Pace Picante sauce and nuked.
You can always recover your actual damages. If the violation is unintentional, there are also some small, capped, statutory damages. If the violation is intentional, uncapped punitives are available.
Check out the liability caps in the FCRA and the FDCPA - $500,000.00 is nothing to these guys.
Because Congress, in the most recent round of amendments to the FCRA _specifically_ stated you can't. Your tax dollars at work.
OK, time to put on the law hat. It's around here somehwere . . .
The United States Government has a lot of power over what happens when you use it's Postal Service. The government clearly states that when someone puts unsolicited items in the mail and sends them out, they become gifts. Game over.
DC is attempting to circumvent 39 USC 3009. The first section of that statute makes such circumvention a violation of the Federal Trade Act, specifically 15 USC 45. The Federal Trade Commission has the power to enforce section 45. The FTC can issue a cease and desist order (not just a "lawyer letter", but an order). If that order is violated, the FTC can sue for up to $10,000.00 for each violation of the order. It is very well-established that each mailing in violation of an order is a separate violation. See,e.g., United States v. Reader's Digest Ass'n.
Look, these guys at DC deserve exactly zero zympathy. DC sent out unsolicited items. They then attempted to assert an ownership interest in items they had given away as a gift. This is an unfair and deceptive trade practice. For once, the folk wisdom about the law is correct - if you get it in the mail unsolocited, it is a gift. Just about everyone in the US knows this. The guys at DC know it.
Look at the language Congress used: the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. I can't think of a broader description of full rights to chattel property. Scan whatever you want or use the little red light for rectal exams. It's your thing.
Any legal information in this post is worth exactly what you paid me for it.
To start - what DC is trying to create is a bailment. A bailment is A delivery of goods or personal property, by one person (bailor) to another (bailee), in trust for execution of a special object upon or in relation to such goods, beneficial either to the bailor or bailee or both, and upon a contract, express or implied, to perform the trust and carry out such object, and thereupon either to redeliver the goods to the bailor or otherwise dispose of the same in conformity with the purposes of the trust. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. All that verbaiage is the attempt to legally describe all the ways you can lend things to other people without transferring title. As DC says in its EULA, The :CueCat reader is only on loan to you from Digital:Convergence and may be recalled at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, your possession or control of the :CueCat reader does not transfer any right, title or interest to you in the :CueCat reader.
:CUECAT READER TO ACHIEVE YOUR INTENDED RESULTS, AND FOR THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF THE :CUECAT READER. This is pretty standard sales warranty disclaimer language. DC states that the user has chosen CueCat. While this may be true for those folks who got it at RS, it is not true for those who received it unsolicited in the mail.
:CUECAT READER IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. DIGITAL:CONVERGENCE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY OR SATISFACTORY QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE The disclaimed warranties are all sales warranties. The especially damning one is the disclaimer of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. First, DC says you can only use it for a particular purpose, and then says it is not warranted to actually serve that purpose. The fitness warranty applies where you get specific help or guidance in selecting a product for a particular use. DC wants it both ways - they want to force you into their particular use, but say that they did not so they can disclaim the warranty.
The most important thing is that a bailment is not an absolute transfer. The bailor (in this case DC) retains title to the chattel property (CueCat).
Problem is, DC goes on to contradict its bailment agreement as follows:
1. The warranty recital.
The DC warranty disclaimer says, YOU ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SELECTION OF THE
2. The warranty disclaimer.
The DC warranty disclaimer goes on: THE
3. Integration clause
The integration clause says, No amendment to or modification of this License will be binding unless in writing and signed by Digital:Convergence. . Hey, where's the signature?
For further entertainment, check out http://www.digitalconvergence.com/legal.html, which contains the absolutely laughable statement, The materials ("Materials") contained in Digital:Convergence Corporation ("Digital:Convergence") Web site are provided for informational purposes only. Ah, its just info, not a real contract.
Geez, these guys are fools. Bankruptcy or buyout in 12 months.
Look at the names on the letterhead. No Kenyons. So . . . Dead lawyers will be suing flying butt monkeys.
It's our world, friends .. let's use it the right way
I am not your friend. I am your worst enemy, you fundamentalist freak.
In addition, he suffers from a severe performative contradiction.
He strongly criticizes ESR for advocating gun ownership rights. His argument is as folows:
1. ESR is a free software advocate
2. ESR is a "gun-nut"
3. Guns are bad
4. Therefore, free software is bad
(I know this is a bit condensed, but this is the core of the argument).
Meyer's problem is that his copyright defense is subject to exactly the same analysis, to wit:
1. Beaumarchais was a copyright advocate
2. Beaumarchais was a "gun-nut" (or at least a gun smuggler)
3. Guns are bad.
4. Therefore copyright is bad.
Not only does Meyer engage in informal fallacies (the ad hominem to be precise), but he is also a hypocrite.
And hypocrisy is unethical in jsut about any system.
IAAL, but this is worth only as much as you paid for it.... 1. In commerce clause jurisprudence, there is a doctrine of preemption, i.e. the States may not have power to regulate things because the federal government may have preempted that power. 2. There is also the problem of the full faith and credit clause. States must respect contracts in other states. This is what got the funadmentalists undies in a bunch over the potential of gay marriages in Hawaii. If Hawaii allowed same sex marriages, the other States would have to give that marriage full faith and credit. 3. Federal courts do have jurisdiction over controversies involving citizens of different states (called diversity jurisdiction), but only if the amount in controversy is $75,000.00 or more. 4. What you will have in each of these controversies is a "conflict of laws" analysis. These types of controversies show up all the time, and all the states have rules for resolving them. I once sued a repo man in federal district court in the District of Minnesota for violating the Wisconsin Consumer Act - Federal court applying Minnesota conflicts of laws analysis to determine it should use Wisconsin law! The result of all this? Big downtown law firms will make LOTS and LOTS of money for a while . . . .